Slashdot Mirror


Discovery's Final Launch Successful

Phoghat writes "Overcoming a down-to-the-last-second problem, space shuttle Discovery made history yesterday, launching on its final mission to orbit. The most-traveled orbiter is carrying a crew of six astronauts and one human-like Robonaut, along with a new permanent storeroom and supplies for the International Space Station." The launch itself went as planned; a few pieces of foam insulation broke free of the external fuel tank on the way up, but it's not expected to be a safety concern, and they're planning an inspection to make sure. NASA has videos of yesterday's launch and a Discovery retrospective, and the Atlantic has a great collection of pictures involving the shuttle. Mike Coats, pilot of Discovery's first mission in 1984, spoke in an interview about his connection to the orbiter. Discovery comes back to Earth on March 7th.

149 comments

  1. Final. by grub · · Score: 3, Informative


    "Final Launch Successful"?
    Even if it were unsuccessful, it still would have been Discovery's final launch.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Final. by jnpcl · · Score: 1

      but it wouldn't be Discovery's Final Successful Launch, now would it?

    2. Re:Final. by intellitech · · Score: 1

      If it failed to launch, I don't see how it would be the final launch, considering there are some things on there that NEED to get to ISS.

      --
      vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    3. Re:Final. by grub · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of it it made it off the pad and blew up.
      Kind of like the Challenger, but newer and in HD.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:Final. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      So, like the Columbia.

    5. Re:Final. by ZankerH · · Score: 1

      Columbia burned up on re-entry, Challenger was "rapidly disintegrated" (read: exploded) shortly after launch.

    6. Re:Final. by grub · · Score: 1

      No, not like Columbia.

      Though, oddly enough, Columbia's final launch was also successful.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    7. Re:Final. by bsane · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you mean by 'successful launch'...

      It sustained damage that caused it to break apart (albeit sometime later). I'm not sure I would consider a launch that directly lead to its destruction 'successful'.

    8. Re:Final. by grub · · Score: 1

      Well, successful enough that it made it to orbit. :)

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    9. Re:Final. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Even if it were unsuccessful, it still would have been Discovery's final launch.

      Yes. But this final launch was successful as the title says. I think I'm missing your point.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Final. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If it failed to launch, I don't see how it would be the final launch, considering there are some things on there that NEED to get to ISS.

      Still, it's Discovery's final launch, regardless of if it blew up after launching or was successful. It may not be the final shuttle launch, but it's Discovery's. Remember, there's also another shuttle on the launchpad too for emergencies. Atlantis, I think?

    11. Re:Final. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I sort of smoosh taking off and getting back as part of a successful launch. Perhaps that's not specifically correct, but you get my meaning.

    12. Re:Final. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Neither Challenger nor Columbia exploded. Challenger disintegrated because of wind resistance, like a boat during a storm. It "turned" (for lack of better word) from the "into the wind" position which caused the aerodynamic forces to break it up (it wasn't designed to handle more than about 5G). Now, you don't say that a sail boat that sinks because it turned away from the storm as "exploded", do you?

      Nothing on Challenger exploded. Even the giant oxygen/hydrogen tank didn't explode. It also disintegrated because of aerodynamic pressure, but it did not catch on fire. The cause of the entire incident was broken o-ring on the solid booster rocket that caused the rocket to tear away from the orbiter.The crew most likely survived the breakup of the shuttle, but became unconscious as the cabin lost pressure. More about this on wikipedia,

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

      Columbia disintegrated during re-entry, or burned up as you say.

    13. Re:Final. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Not everyone is cynical enough to equate "launch failure" with disaster.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    14. Re:Final. by treeves · · Score: 1

      I don't think you missed anything at all. His only point was to say something, anything at all, even if it meant saying essentially nothing, in order to get first post. Why it got modded informative is a mystery.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    15. Re:Final. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not this time.

      This is the last possible launch without making more parts.

    16. Re:Final. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Actually if it clears to tower then it's a launch. Landing on the other hand....

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    17. Re:Final. by strack · · Score: 1

      you can go into the fine detail to try and save face as much as you want, but that fucker exploded. the shuttle was a badly designed spacecraft.

    18. Re:Final. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      We will grant you that it did not explode if you will concede that it flared up into an fireball which rapidly expanded with what would be considered explosive force and speed. Fair enough?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPYmSdyVZc&t=1m20s
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDt2LxoeA_g&t=1m20s
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE&t=1m35s
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hQL0NWS1Rc&t=1m17s

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    19. Re:Final. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Pedantic AC is pedantic. Explode originally meant to drive off by clapping (ex - plodere), so you completely missed the obvious reason as to why explode was the wrong word to describe Columbia's demise.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re:Final. by kfsone · · Score: 1

      There's no debating that there was an explosion - the main fuel tank exploded, whether with or without combusion is not relevant - the fuel rapidly.

      The orbiter, however, had detached sufficiently before the explosion that if you put the two at rest on the ground, the tank explosion would probably have buffeted the shuttle but done little significant damage to it.

      Unfortunately, the vehicle was right in the middle of maneuvers designed to prevent it being destroyed by the *normal* conditions it was passing thru.

      At the point in its flight at which the as-yet undamaged challenger separated from its launch vehicle, the velocity, air pressure and etc are outside the vehicle's specifications. It needs that big main tank there to protect it. What happened to the challenger orbiter is the result of travelling at X miles per hour in attitude [X,Y,Z][r,p,y] at an altitude of X miles without the main fuel tank to protect it: it begins to break up.

      Engineering types get testy about our seeing it all just as one big bang because what happened to the orbiter itself is a mind-blowing tale of engineering success in extreme conditions: the orbiter itself failed with magnificent grace, broke apart largely according to plan, allowed the crew compartment to separate in-tact. I mean - wrap your head around that -- I find that mind boggling and staggering, and yet almost entirely ignored/overlooked in the light of the big boom.

      If it had had ejector seats for the crew, and the crew had been in pressurized suites, chances are it might even have been survivable.

      I'm not an engineer, so at the end of the day, I probably say "challenger exploded" myself. But I think its sometimes worth noting that there was more to it than that?

      --
      -- A change is as good as a reboot.
  2. Nice work by the editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The delay in posting this story was the result of the editors staying up all night to review the footage for foam strikes.

    Other sources rushed to judgment with yesterday's proclamations.

    1. Re:Nice work by the editors by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Actually, the three launch videos they have on the NASA site are strategically cut so you don't see the foam strike. I watched it live and it was pretty obvious when it came off,in between SRB separation and external tank separation. But the "Discovery's Last Launch a Spectacular Sight" and "STS-133 Daily Mission Recap - Flight Day 1" videos cut off before the foam strike, while the "STS-133 Discovery is in Orbit" video picks up after the foam strike.

      I'm not sure why they're trying to hide it. Seeing it live, it was pretty obvious that it was a low relative velocity impact. It was already so far up in space that there wasn't enough air to slow the foam down considerably prior to impact.

  3. Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yet another in a 30-year line of NASA PR flights. "Hey, look, we've got a ROBOT on this one!!"

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Compared to what, spending it on wellfare for worthless excuses for human beings? It would be more productive just to make a big money pile and light it on fire.....

      .....you know what? That is kind of like launching a rocket into space....and they got a ROBOT ON THIS ONE too!!

      Turns out they were even more productive than I thought. Good job NASA!

      Go take a bath elrous0, you smell of dirty hippy.

    2. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by stms · · Score: 0

      Or they successfully invested another $700 million into the long term future of the human race...

    3. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 2

      Compared to what, spending it on wellfare for worthless excuses for human beings? It would be more productive just to make a big money pile and light it on fire.....

      The federal budget deficit is a trillion dollars larger this year than 2008, and we don't even get a space program out of it anymore.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    4. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      How has it been a waste? Other than the cost of raw materials, you can make a case that everything else is an investment into science related fields.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    5. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      And how exactly does the 133rd space shuttle launch into LEO benefit the "long term future of the human race" again?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be better spent on crackheads. I bet the crackhead will live longer than that robot.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you might have noticed that 500 years ago some nations in europe spent a lot of money sending boats in the wrong direction, towards the ends of the earth

      complete waste of money, right?

      it should be a crime to display such ignorant levels of a lack of an imagination, like you do

      nothing worth going into space for, right?

      nothing worth sending perfectly good boats over the ends of the earth for, right?

      what a pinhead

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by stms · · Score: 0

      Because were still learning things up there. Believe it or not this rock we live on isn't going to last forever.

    9. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 0

      Yes but the robot's contribution to humanity is probably far greater, all humans may be born equal, but they certainly don't die equal.

    10. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You're mistaking running PR on the sexy part of a mundane but critical mission with making up a mission to do something sexy just to get PR.

      If NASA weren't publicly funded, it couldn't give a crap about how the proles view its scientific mission, it would only try to please the science.

      Enjoy the robot. You paid for it, and it's spectacular.

    11. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Yet another in a 30-year line of NASA PR flights. "Hey, look, we've got a ROBOT on this one!!"

      Well of course it's just PR for people who are only interested enough to learn that there is a robot, and not anything more. You can't blame them for sound-biting when you're the one restricting yourself to a sound-bite.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it is used to build things and support the Space Station. It is used to learn and advance. We aren't going anywhere until some very specific problems are solved, and to solve them we need a place in space to research and test them.

      The shuttle was an extremely valuable asset in making it happen.

      And of course, the Shuttle itself has lead to many advancements in technology. I mean the things is about 15% lighter now then when it was built due to the replacement of parts with newer material developed for the Shuttle, and then used in the private sector.

      We got far more out of the shuttle, and the space agency as a whole, then we put into it.

      Money very well spent.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Have a look at all those spending cuts to defense that are definitely needed.... oh wait...

    14. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by the_hellspawn · · Score: 1

      not all humans are born equal either. Some are born with platinum spoons, others with plastic spoons, and even some born without a darn spoon. Show me the equality in that?

      --
      "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
    15. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by AmericanIndian · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I wish they hadn't.

    16. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      this is your only comment

      http://slashdot.org/~AmericanIndian/comments

      so you seemed to have created an account called "AmericanIndian" just to give some weird weight to a reply to my stupid post?

      seriously?

      btw, a real American "Indian" wouldn't call themselves an "Indian", that's the give away. i don't understand why 500 years after columbus made a mistake with his maps that we are still calling the original peoples of north america "indians", and i don't think they, or genuine real asian indians, understand why either

      so i don't know why you felt so compelled to create an entire account just to reply to my dumb comment, but you are certainly a hard working troll, that's for sure

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      It should be a crime to be as naive as you, falling for the common Star Trek "Final Frontier" misconception that exploring the impossibly vast, empty, radiation-bombarded, vacuum of cold space is in any way analogous to exploring different parts of the planet earth.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Nick+Ives · · Score: 2

      Or it's just someone failing at being funny. No need to get so worked up :)

      --
      Nick
    19. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      DoD is 20% of the budget. The other 80% could use some trimming too.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    20. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or it's just someone failing at being funny. No need to get so worked up :)

      Hello, and welcome to Slashdot!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    21. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by atrain728 · · Score: 1

      But contribute nothing.

    22. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Don't make such assumptions about crackheads. Charlie Sheen gave us "Young Guns" *and* "Major League. And that was in ONE YEAR.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    23. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      "pure research is never wasted, it is invested"

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    24. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by villageidiot357 · · Score: 1

      That's funny I thought they were looking for gold and spices not exploring as an end in itself?

    25. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it should be a crime to write douchier-than-thou commentary.

      It's not a bad idea to keep trying to learn how to push across that vast, empty, radiation-bombarded vacuum. We have people that argue the opposite extreme, that we should spend no money on trying to get into space. That we should spend all our money on feeding the homeless instead or fund an art project or something. I hope you're not one of those people. Honestly, 700 million is almost nothing compared to the rest of the government's budget.

      You don't really belong on slashdot if you don't realize the true value and goal of this, which is to gain knowledge. Of course it is expensive, because of the type of knowledge we're going after. If it could be solved by someone here on the ground rubbing two sticks together, it's already been done. 500 years ago, they had to build a boat. These days. to answer a question we must build a cyclotron, or space shuttle, or anti-matter container. Or, fucking robots n' shit.

    26. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by treeves · · Score: 2

      First UID I'd seen above 2E+06.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    27. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      there is no use in trying to argue with someone with such a complete lack of wonder and curiosity about the value of a pursuit that is all about wonder and curiosity. suffice it to say that every great discovery of mankind in every single field of endeavor is due to people with the exact opposite quality of mind as you. you: you're a pinhead, a dolt, of little more use to science and technology than a doorstop

      you really are posting on the wrong website, pinhead

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    28. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      there is no use in trying to argue with someone with such a complete lack of wonder and curiosity about the value of a pursuit that is all about wonder and curiosity.

      So long as it's 'all about wonder and curiosity', spaceflight will be restricted to a tiny number of people who can raise the money to indulge their curiosity. If you want to get a lot of people into space, you need to figure out how to make money up there.

      And making enough money from manned spaceflight to justify the cost of the trip is much harder than making enough money in America was for Columbus and friends. Figure out how to do it and you'll have investors lining up.

    29. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      who the fuck cares about sending the maximum number of people into space? why the fuck do you think that is the goal?

      look: the most important discoveries science has ever made stemmed from basic research: research for research's sake. not an economically driven pursuit. yet all of those amazing discoveries from basic research has resulted in trillions in economic development

      the point for going into space is not about following the money, its about basic research. you of course will poopoo that, because you don't see the immediate economic benefit of it. which only means you are a pinhead who stop fucking talking about a subject matter predicated on a sense of basic human wonder you apparently don't understand

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    30. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is nothing out there except more ocean. I mean space. So we know that it makes no sense to go out there.

    31. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by gilbert644 · · Score: 1

      Keep it to reddit.

    32. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      the most important discoveries science has ever made stemmed from basic research: research for research's sake

      You misspelled "research into how to kill people more effectively". War is the single greatest catalyst for scientific discovery (and application) in our shared history.

    33. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you say this because it seems to me that when colombus began his journey to india, the common knowledge was that there was nothing, far to the west, except the end of the world. Well, at least in our case, we know that there is something within our reach, in the general direction of space... (and obviously, there is no need for a prime for the first to spot "earth")

    34. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Plus, he got the girl. Er, I mean girls.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    35. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      They ended up killing a lot of people in the lands they 'discovered', but let's not pay attention to that.

      However I say to this shuttle launch: good riddance. An old, massively inefficient and expensive piece of crap that serves no purpose to push any boundaries forward at all.

      How about gov't stops with the wars and everything else they do and let people decide how to spend their own money? Is that too much to ask?

      Clearly NASA's budget is insignificant compared to everything else, but AFAIC whatever NASA is getting in budget, that should be the ENTIRE budget of the federal gov't, and not a cent more.

    36. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Funny you say this because it seems to me that when colombus began his journey to india, the common knowledge was that there was nothing, far to the west, except the end of the world.

      Er, well, actually, "common knowledge" at the time was that there was nothing to the west except for, eventually, Asia. People didn't think Columbus was a ninny because he thought the earth was a globe, they thought he was a ninny because he thought the globe was smaller than it actually is and sailing all the way around it to India was a practical idea. That's why the doofus thought he'd landed in India when he'd traveled less than half the distance everyone else thought he'd have to.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    37. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      look: the most important discoveries science has ever made stemmed from basic research: research for research's sake. not an economically driven pursuit. yet all of those amazing discoveries from basic research has resulted in trillions in economic development

      And changes to our lives that go way beyond just merely more wealth, but things can't even imagine. There's no way the people researching quantum tunneling in the early parts of last century could have possibly foreseen us having this conversation today, but without that research, the computer age would have never began.

      Which is why I love to hear people making arguments against the value of basic research on the Internet. It's like they don't even realize that the very medium for their message is proving them wrong.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    38. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low earth orbit. For 30 years. Why don't we go to Mars?

    39. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      It should be a crime to be as naive as you, falling for the common Star Trek "Final Frontier" misconception that exploring the impossibly vast, empty, radiation-bombarded, vacuum of cold space is in any way analogous to exploring different parts of the planet earth.

      As naive as, say, Carl Sagan? Who made that exact comparison in Pale Blue Dot?

      It has always been our destiny to cover this earth, and it is certainly also our destiny to explore the cosmos. Compared to the skills and resources of their time, crossing the vast Atlantic ocean really isn't much different than modern humans landing on Mars. I understand the immense difficulties in doing so, but there were immense difficulties in crossing the Atlantic back then. And there were many deaths, as there well may be when we begin to send humans far from Earth. Space is vast and inhospitable, but to a shipwrecked sailor, so is the ocean. They may live a little longer before the sea takes them, but if a storm sunk their ship, they had nearly as little chance of surviving as a human in a damaged Space Ship. There's nothing to drink, nowhere to take refuge, and generally nothing to eat.

      Space now and the oceans of our past are not nearly as different as you may think.

      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    40. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      And yet 500 years ago, people would have described the Atlantic Ocean as "impossibly vast, empty, storm-tossed expanse of undrinkable water". And you'll note that Columbus had to lie about the diameter of the Earth to get funding for his trip. How big of a lie? Basically where he found the Caribbean Islands is where he told the Kind and Queen of Spain he would find Japan.

      I don't believe that it will be worthwhile for a long time, but I believe there will eventually be expeditions at least as far as the asteroid belt.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    41. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the govt shouldn't build roads and bridges, dams and dikes, maintain at least defensive forces, regulate and maintain communications facilities and equipment, provide disaster relief, have a structure in place that makes sure laws are fair and constitutional between individual states, negotiate foreign policy, finance basic research using it's research institutions (like the DOE labs for ex) on a scale that dwarfs anything the States or private sector could do, make at least somewhat sane environmental policy, etc.... (hint: every one of those items dwarfs NASA's budget).

      For that matter, when we disband all those government offices, programs, and institutions, how exactly will employ the suddenly out of work *10s of millions*?

      Yes the federal govt. needs to streamline a bit, but comments like yours are foolish, short sighted, and atomic-grade stupid.

      Govt. exists to do the things that are too big, with too low or too long term ROI for local govt or the private sector to handle. Basic research, which includes the DOE facilities, NASA, etc pay *huge* dividends in the long term (to say nothing of the knowledge itself being valuable), but are on scale that the private sector, "people spending their own money" cannot and will not manage. We all pay taxes for the common good, and we all have a vote, though many don't use it, and we all have a voice, though many don't try to be heard.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    42. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking like you should be a crime, dealt with summary execution. Fuck off.

    43. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by eddeye · · Score: 1

      nothing worth sending perfectly good boats over the ends of the earth for, right?

      Are you purposely being obtuse? Good god man, you can't seriously compare the age of exploration with space travel. The Spanish crown knew exactly what they wanted - spices from China and India. They knew you could get there sailing west. The only thing they didn't know was how far it was. They got lucky when an untapped continent (or two) just happened to be in the way. But even before that fortunate accident, they had clearly defined, achievable goals from the outset.

      What possible reason do we have to muck about in space? It's cold, it's dark, it's inhospitable, and it takes ridiculous amounts of energy to send the tiniest mass there. More importantly, there's nothing useful in space that we can't get cheaper and better here on Earth. Sure, zero g has niche applications, and the metals in an asteroid would be nice, but there's just no economic benefit to those now.

      Face it, space is dead. Leave it for the robots.

      --
      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
    44. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I wrote so much on this here, including the FDR era subsidized roads catastrophe, SS ponzi, lots of data on things like private vs gov't health insurance and care... I am just not in the mood to argue, I had a long night and day and a week and more, it's tiring and useless to argue on /. anyway. But you can read my journal links, those are to my comments that I like, there enough there for me to rewrite and plenty for you to understand you are arguing with the wrong guy on this subject.

    45. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that pre-car era we still had federally subsidized roads, rail, bridges, tunnels, and dams right? And that people made the same arguments about *them* that you're making now about car-based systems? I was making a point about the need for transportation infrastructure, not necessarily the car-based system we have now (which is basically what you're complaining about).

      As for the Fed and SS... from your argument I feel like you completely miss the reasons for SS (for that matter you certainly are mistaken about how SS operates and what a Ponzi scheme is - and yes, I have built large scale mathematical models of both, why do you ask?), but I'm not going type out a whole econ lesson here (though I started to before I realized it'd be futile). I will say that your ideas on how money operates "counterfeit" money as you talk about it. A commodity backed currency has a lot of it's own problems, a gold-backed system these days would suck in a great deal of ways, starting with relative scarcity and going from there. For that matter, the idea that in the 19th c "Any paper was only an exact gold substitute" is silly because it was still, in the end, based on trust in the govt and the banking system to back the currency. Trust that they would pay it if you wanted to redeem it, and trust that you didn't have to because the govt never had enough gold to cover all the currency in circulation.

      I like the idea of *smaller* federal govt, but there is no way we are ever going back to articles of confederation style govt that would seem to suit what you want, or even a pre-civil war govt. There are too many things that really do need to be centralized, too many things that, in a modern world, with modern communications and transportation, need to be handled above the level you'd like to see it handled.

      To bring this back to the main topic of this article, science is *absolutely* one of things. The huge investments made in basic research by the federal govt have contributed to far more revenue for the public than the cost, but the cost is so high that no-one else could possibly finance it. That said, while it's astronomically high by private industry or local govt standards, it's trivial on a federal level (the DOE, NASA, and the NSF *combined* equal a bit under 2% of the federal budget). To complain about funding NASA is one of the most completely idiotic things I have ever seen on /.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    46. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      20%? Citation? Most of what I've seen is in the 30-40% range...

      Hmm, while I was fact checking, I found your 20%(18% for last year actually) but I also found all of the "extra" defense spending. I guess special projects etc for which the DoD requests additional funding outside of normal budgetary means, and that puts it into where I thought it was.

      Regardless, the DoD could take some cuts and still do its job if the US were not acting as world police, which they honestly shouldn't be.

      This is a nicely biased graph here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

      However, over half of the "Discretionary" Spending listed on the graph goes directly to the DoD. bumping them up to 30%, and becoming by far the largest single spending sink in the entire budget.

      Now, I'm not saying medicare/medicaid and Social Security programs shouldn't take a cut, but those require some major internal restructuring that doesn't seem likely to happen with your current political atmosphere.

    47. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the misconception that 15th century Europeans thought the world was flat. :)

    48. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Whalou · · Score: 1

      That was my second. The first one was earlier today: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2029710&cid=35431808.

      I wonder if it's the same guy or if we're dealing with a copycat.

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    49. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      But look on the bright side - as a fringe benefit, one US dollar is worth much, much less than in 2008. That way we don't get as many American tourists here anymore. All in all I consider it a plus.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    50. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Only fools believe in equality. But a lawful society usually tries to prevent the hugely advantaged from stomping on the disadvantaged just for the hell of it. It doesn't always work, but once in a while the underdog can reverse his position without violence or bloodshed.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    51. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      In the long term the human race has no future. Perhaps we have a different definition of "long term".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    52. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ignoring the fact that americas were already known by the nordic, turkish, french and probably the chinese much before the said "discovery"

    53. Re:Yeah, they successfully wasted $700 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psst... we are running out of room here. Where else would you like us to go?

  4. so by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Do Endeavor and Atlantis also have one last turn,each or is that it?

    1. Re:so by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On NASA's web page, Endeavour is scheduled for one final mission this April and Atlantis for June. However, I seem to recall some controversy about whether the Atlantis mission would be funded. Also, I have to wonder if the months of delay on this recent Discovery launch will allow affect the timing of Endeavour's final mission.
      http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html

    3. Re:so by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      Apparently NASA has to fly Atlantis, so it's definitely going ahead: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/orbiters.html

      The way people were talking, I thought STS-133 was the final shuttle mission but now I realise there are two more chances to see a launch. Back in the 90s we had a family holiday to Florida during which there was a Shuttle launch window. Unfortunately the launch was delayed, so we didn't get to see blast off.

      I'm now really thinking about taking a week to fly over there, it's not like it'll happen again....

      --
      Nick
    4. Re:so by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Heck I'd be happy as a clam if I get to watch the launch close to the giant countdown clock (where exactly is it, anyone know?

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    5. Re:so by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      There are probably quite a few of them, but one fairly famous one is at the Apollo/Saturn V center, which also serves as a VIP viewing area. Contact your Congresscritter or Senator to see if you can scare up a ticket, although odds will be slim at this short notice. I just watched Discovery go up from there. First and last live viewing of a launch. Totally worth the time, though I'd definitely research alternate ways to get back to Orlando - we left KSC at 6:30, didn't get back to the hotel until 11:30.

    6. Re:so by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Heck I'd be happy as a clam if I get to watch the launch close to the giant countdown clock (where exactly is it, anyone know?

      Press site. I don't know the details of how you get a press pass. You could contact the NASA public affairs office, but you almost certainly won't get to go there without being press.

      The KSC visitor's center holds (held?) a lottery for public viewing passes at the NASA causeway.

      Another option is to find someone who works at a NASA center and ask them to request an employee pass for the NASA causeway. Those usually come out a couple of weeks before the launch. Even then, though, they're pretty hard to get now even for employees (fortunately, they're easier to come by where I am now, and I have a death pact with several co-workers that we'll take each other if one of us doesn't get one.)

      FWIW, causeway pictures I took on Thursday: https://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2004666&id=183100363&fbid=506378627842

    7. Re:so by Leebert · · Score: 1

      though I'd definitely research alternate ways to get back to Orlando - we left KSC at 6:30, didn't get back to the hotel until 11:30.

      Don't stay in Orlando; Cocoa or Cocoa Beach, or even Melborne. South is fairly easy post-launch, west is torturous.

      Alternatively, I just learned last night that you can go South on I-95 and zip back up route 192. It's a longer distance, but lighter traffic.

    8. Re:so by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Err, that's Don't stay in Orlando; stay in Cocoa or Cocoa Beach or even Melbourne.

    9. Re:so by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the launch was delayed, so we didn't get to see blast off.
      I'm now really thinking about taking a week to fly over there, it's not like it'll happen again....

      I wish you good luck. I went there last November for the original launch date,
      and had more than a week. Still didn't get to see the launch. Grumble.

      And yes, I'm considering trying again too, it is a part of history I really
      wouldn't want to have missed completely.

    10. Re:so by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      FWIW, causeway pictures I took on Thursday: https://www.facebook.com/album.php?...

      A facebook link that requires a login to host photos you want to share on slashdot?
      Are you shooting for a "funny troll" mod?

  5. Taking Off vs. Landing by afabbro · · Score: 1

    Which is the more dangerous phase for the Space Shuttle (where "more dangerous" means "likely to blow up"): taking off or returning?

    So far it's 1 for takeoff (Columbia) and 1 for returning (Challenger).

    I wonder also what the general answer is for all manned spaceflight (at current technology)...big rocket filled with explosives shooting into the air, or coming back through reentry...

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So far it's 1 for takeoff (Columbia) and 1 for returning (Challenger)

      I believe you have those switched.

    2. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both.
      Actually if you look at total deaths it is probably re-entry. There are multiple abort modes for the shuttle and conventional rockets that are survivable. Plus if you have an issue you do not have to launch.
      As the old saying goes. Take off is optional landing is not.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by bryantthesmith · · Score: 1

      Take-off seems to be where most problems occur. If you remember, the reason that Columbia burned up in re-entry was because of a problem that occurred at take-off (foam flying off and ripping a hole in the wing). If Columbia would have had a successful take-off, they most likely would have had a successful re-entry. I think take-off is more dangerous because you are not strapped to millions of pound of explosives when you re-enter.

    4. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by afabbro · · Score: 1

      So far it's 1 for takeoff (Columbia) and 1 for returning (Challenger)

      I believe you have those switched.

      Yes. Sorry.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    5. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Take-off is more stress on the physical components because the forces are bigger.

      Re-entry is a glide, even the part at several thousand mph with the flaming heat-shield isn't that forceful or jarring.

    6. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by istartedi · · Score: 1

      If you pull in all spaceflight, including the Soviet program, I'm guessing blast-off is more dangerous. IIRC, the Soviets had a rocket blow up and kill not only all cosmonauts, but dozens of ground observers who were too close.

      It's a close race though. Don't forget testing as an also-ran. There's the Apollo oxygen fire, and recently there have been deaths during the test phase of some private rockets, I want to say it was Armadillo Aerospace, but I don't recall off the top of my head...

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    7. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the Soviets had a rocket blow up and kill not only all cosmonauts, but dozens of ground observers who were too close.

      They didn't kill anyone in the rocket, because no-one was dumb enough to sit in there while they tried to fix it.

      I don't believe the Soviets ever lost a crew during launch, even the one time they had to use the escape tower. All their losses were during re-entry, and I believe those were all due to design flaws or manufacturing defects.

    8. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 1

      If you pull in all spaceflight, including the Soviet program, I'm guessing blast-off is more dangerous.

      That's because if a rocket is defective enough to fail during launch, it never gets a chance to fail during re-entry!

    9. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He may be thinking of the really bad ICBM test the Soviets had in 1960, which killed something like 70 people at the launch facility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-16_(missile) No cosmonauts or spacecraft involved.

      As far as I know, the only time the more dangerous hypergolic fuels have been used on a launch rocket carrying manned spacecraft are the version of the Titan 2 used for the Gemini launches (it's also used in much smaller form on the Apollo Service Module, the Space Shuttle OMS, and the Agena target vehicle for out-of-atmosphere propulsion.)

    10. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the damage which caused Challenger to burn/break up caused by the launch?

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    11. Re:Taking Off vs. Landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking off I guess would be more dangerous because:
      - You have the most amount of dead weight (fuel in this case)
      - You have the least amount of speed...

      So if something goes wrong before reaching your orbit you're in deep trouble I assume. You can always let go of your shuttle once you reach the ISS and wait for a new one to arrive and get you back home (unless of course you're on the last space shuttle mission )....

  6. armless babies worldwide applauding our prowess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe they're just waving, trying to bring our attention to their (last) plight? they're not unnoticed.

  7. "it's not expected to be a safety concern" by idontgno · · Score: 1

    "a few pieces of foam insulation [breaking] free of the external fuel tank on the way up" weren't expected to be a safety concern on Columbia's final mission, too.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:"it's not expected to be a safety concern" by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

      The difference is that this time, they are planning on performing a thorough inspection on-orbit instead of relying on that expectation. Furthermore, I am sure that the limits of what is tolerable are much tighter now than they were then.

      Aikon-

    2. Re:"it's not expected to be a safety concern" by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      did they pack more foam?

      what if its not safe and they dont have more on hand, do they just hang out at the space station till the next taxi?

    3. Re:"it's not expected to be a safety concern" by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Yup. Suddenly it's not the shuttle's last mission after all...

    4. Re:"it's not expected to be a safety concern" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And they hadn't been a concern for every mission preceding it.
      It happens on every flight. The risk, while real, is extremely low.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:"it's not expected to be a safety concern" by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      "a few pieces of foam insulation [breaking] free of the external fuel tank on the way up" weren't expected to be a safety concern on Columbia's final mission, too.

      This time it hit the underside of the shuttle at a low relative velocity, in Columbia's case it hit the leading edge of the wing (the most delicate part of the heat shield) at a few hundred miles per hour. Not only that, but this time we have pretty good video from the external tank showing no obvious significant damage.

      Plus, as mentioned, it will be inspected in orbit just in case.

    6. Re:"it's not expected to be a safety concern" by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

      Yes, but more likely would by the emergency Soyuz capsule currently docked there, and then a series of Soyuz launches until everyone is down that is supposed to be. Much cheaper than scrapping STS-134.

      Aikon-

    7. Re:"it's not expected to be a safety concern" by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Well, if the damage is the same as the last time, there's a chance they could patch it for re-entry using parts sent up from Baikonur. Maybe not even have to use the escape capsule.

      Just a chance, though. I highly doubt the structure of the vehicle was designed for that sort of maintainability. But you never know. Duct tape works extremely well in space.

    8. Re:"it's not expected to be a safety concern" by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I have never personally tested it on reentry, just for extra safety I would use gorilla tape, though I have confidence they have gorilla tape, after all the cost's of this (do what again? oh yea add a storage shed to the station) mission I doubt they bought the cheap stuff.

  8. Farewell and Good Riddence! by avatar139 · · Score: 2

    I'm continually surprised by the number of people mourning the loss of the Space Shuttle as a major blow to space exploration considering if anything, the Shuttle program did more to kill space exploration than any other singular factor!

    While I disagree with Michael Griffin's views on a lot of issues, the scathing paper he wrote in 2007 criticizing the merits of the Shuttle program should be required reading for both present and future NASA employees as it provides a substantial contribution to the case for why the Space Shuttle did more to kill our ability to explore space than any other factors did by wasting so much money, time, and resources away from the development of ELVs.

    ELVs to this day remain a far more flexible, reliable and cost effective means of getting payloads into orbit and beyond than the Shuttle has ever been.

    To be fair, the loss of both shuttles can be attributed a great deal to the culture shift at NASA, as there was a time when the organization prided itself on having the best engineers in the world, however all too often they have now been ignored in favor of the overly unrealistic views of scientists and management, the latter have shown a clear trend over the past several decades of ignoring safety concerns in favor of maintaining launch dates despite the inevitably fatal consequences of such an attitude.

    More than one former NASA employee that I know has plans to hold a party during the launch of Atlantis' final flight in June (if funding for the mission goes through, if not, it will be at Endeavour's launch in April) not to commemorate the Shuttle program but rather to celebrate the future potential of Space Exploration when the Shuttle program finally dies!

    --
    I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
    1. Re:Farewell and Good Riddence! by blair1q · · Score: 2

      I disagree. Without the shuttle, and the orbital missions it enabled and was needed to service, most of NASA would have simply shut down, and other launch endeavors would have moved into private development, which they mostly have anyway. And a much smaller NASA, without a primary mission as big as the shuttle's, would have likely ended up being killed or further reduced to a few boffins and a coffee machine.

      Even with a big NASA and a known end to the shuttle program, we don't have a realistic plan to go to Mars. And really, there ain't much for us on the Moon. We really were making up shit to do by the last couple of missions.

      What the shuttle and orbital missions have done in the meantime is take all of the skunk-works engineering that went into Apollo and morphed rocket science into a profession of verifying the reliability and safety of the product. And it's allowed us to develop a much better sense of what it takes to survive long durations in space. Things that are absolutely critical for future missions to other planets.

    2. Re:Farewell and Good Riddence! by avatar139 · · Score: 1

      Without the shuttle, and the orbital missions it enabled and was needed to service, most of NASA would have simply shut down, and other launch endeavors would have moved into private development, which they mostly have anyway.

      If you were talking about this happening in the present day I might agree with that, but considering this was in the 70s you have to remember there really weren't very many private companies launching satellites into space, so given that it really wouldn't have been worth it to try to privatize it given the amount of money required to develop and build the infrastructure required for new launch sites.

      You also might want to remember that national security concerns would've most likely prohibited a push to privatization in the 70s as back then the NRO was still reliant on having to retrieve reconnaissance photos by bringing satellites back down, developing the film of the pictures they took while in orbit, and then having to launch them back up, hence the NIC and DoD would never have permitted that level of privatization to something that tactically crucial!

      Even with a big NASA and a known end to the shuttle program, we don't have a realistic plan to go to Mars. And really, there ain't much for us on the Moon.

      To be fair, it's not like there's really much for us to do on Mars either, but actually the whole point of my original post was that the way you end up with "realistic" plans is by not allocating the majority of your resources to insanely overpriced and overcomplex things like the shuttle that suck money away from designing, testing and implementing new methods and technologies that could make it realistic (not to mention cheaper) for us to go there if we did want to.

      What the shuttle and orbital missions have done in the meantime is take all of the skunk-works engineering that went into Apollo and morphed rocket science into a profession of verifying the reliability and safety of the product.

      No way. If you compare the safety and reliability records of the Shuttles versus ELVs by looking at the percentage of successfully completed mission objectives, ELVs are clearly more reliable!

      Incidentally, I should point out that I'm not even getting into discussion here regarding fatalities, which as I stated in my previous post I view as a failure not just on the Shuttle program (although there's certainly blame that should be placed there), but on the part of NASA's gradual culture shift that's been going on more and more in the last several decades.

      --
      I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
    3. Re:Farewell and Good Riddence! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      ELVs to this day remain a far more flexible, reliable and cost effective means of getting payloads into orbit and beyond than the Shuttle has ever been.

      Flexible? Not even close - pretty much all an ELV can do is send things up, it cannot bring things back. Consider the Hubble servicing missions, impossible without either the Shuttle or throwing away the tools and servicing equipment after each flight. (Or spending hundreds of millions into making the servicing platform into a survivable free flyer - but you'd still have to carry the spares and specialized tools for that mission with you and then throw the tools away.) Consider Spacelab - each launch of which would have required a quarter of a billion dollars for the lab, and yet more for the crew. (Which wouldn't have been very flexible at all because it's configuration would be fixed, rather than being modified/upgraded after each flight. It also would have been extremely expensive when you figure in the lab itself, as a free flyer, would have clocked in somewhere between a quarter and a half a billion dollars.)
       
      Reliable? The difference in reliability between the Shuttle and any other booster that's even close in reliability is statistically insensible. Ditto between the Shuttle and any manned capsule.
       
      Cost effective? Well, that depends on how you define it. You certainly can launch *cheaper*, but a Yugo is cheaper than a pickup truck or a minivan and is also much less capable. You get what you pay for.
       

      To be fair, the loss of both shuttles can be attributed a great deal to the culture shift at NASA, as there was a time when the organization prided itself on having the best engineers in the world, however all too often they have now been ignored in favor of the overly unrealistic views of scientists and management, the latter have shown a clear trend over the past several decades of ignoring safety concerns in favor of maintaining launch dates despite the inevitably fatal consequences of such an attitude.

      Yeah. It's not like the engineers never told the managers that the O-rings were safe (despite multiple failures of the same) or that foam shedding wasn't an issue (despite serious tile damage). Oh, wait. That's exactly what happened - the engineers insisted there was no problems with the current set up, it was safe to continue to fly until the engineers came up with a fix.

    4. Re:Farewell and Good Riddence! by avatar139 · · Score: 1

      Flexible? Not even close - pretty much all an ELV can do is send things up, it cannot bring things back. Consider the Hubble servicing missions, impossible without either the Shuttle or throwing away the tools and servicing equipment after each flight.

      I disagree, while I admit perhaps flexible was the wrong word, I would say if anything, using the method of creating/developing several designs to be tailored to the specific mission needs (Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo) instead of trying to take a one method for all purposes (Space Shuttle) approach is a far more optimal solution.

      Remember though, when NASA saw how expensive the Shuttle was becoming, in order to keep backing in place for the program, they recommended adopting the mandate that the Shuttle should take over doing all space launches exclusively to justify the massive expenditures, which to be fair did kind of make sense at the time as the demand for satellite launches was still primarily coming from the Military and some Government agencies so demand wasn't nearly as high as it would eventually rise to in the last couple of decades.

      However you also have to remember that as more and more private companies started using satellites from the 80s onwards, and as the Shuttle was simply not able to sustain nearly the number of launches that were originally promised in the conceptual design, it eventually become easier and more cost-effective for companies to use alternate launch methods besides the Shuttle for delivering payloads into space, hence in retrospect I would say that sticking to a (admittedly completely redesigned) ELV based launch program would've worked much better in the long run.

      I'd also like to point out that I'm not really sure why you assume that we need some additional way to "bring things back." I mean we brought "things" and more importantly, people back just fine (as evidenced via the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs) without having the need to create a reusable launch vehicle that could potentially explode on impact.

      Don't get me wrong, I understand the attraction of the original idea behind the conception of the Shuttle Program, namely to have almost a commuter level ease and frequency of reusability of a launch vehicle, so I'm not really disparaging the concept, I'm merely saying that the reality of how the program turned out was an overcomplex, over-expensive mess of what it was supposed to be, hence my view that the ELV approach could have worked out better.

      Consider Spacelab - each launch of which would have required a quarter of a billion dollars for the lab, and yet more for the crew. (Which wouldn't have been very flexible at all because it's configuration would be fixed, rather than being modified/upgraded after each flight. It also would have been extremely expensive when you figure in the lab itself, as a free flyer, would have clocked in somewhere between a quarter and a half a billion dollars.)

      I'm not really as inclined to answer that until you can show me the source of your numbers as IMO, the type of estimate you're talking about crosses the line from hypothetically plausible in a debate setting, to involving so many different factors as to be completely unprovable.

      Reliable? The difference in reliability between the Shuttle and any other booster that's even close in reliability is statistically insensible. Ditto between the Shuttle and any manned capsule.

      I'm not sure what "statistically insensible" means, but I stand by my conclusions regarding reliability by looking at the percentage of total ELV based missions successfully completed versus comparing the numbers of vs the number of canceled/incomplete/failed missions (also including the various objectives of those missions).

      Cost effective? Well, that depends on how you define it. You certainly can launch *cheaper*, but a Yugo is cheaper than a pickup truck or a minivan and is als

      --
      I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
    5. Re:Farewell and Good Riddence! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'm not really as inclined to answer that until you can show me the source of your numbers as IMO, the type of estimate you're talking about crosses the line from hypothetically plausible in a debate setting, to involving so many different factors as to be completely unprovable.

      Then frankly, as so much else in your reply plainly shows - you're not worth debating. You haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

    6. Re:Farewell and Good Riddence! by avatar139 · · Score: 1

      Then frankly, as so much else in your reply plainly shows - you're not worth debating. You haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

      Yeah, because nothing says how informed you are about a subject like the presentation of an Ad hominem argument to the person you've been debating with! ;)

      --
      I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
  9. I went to the original Nov 1 launch date by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Postponed 11 times, four months and 4 minutes. It was interesting to tour the NASA complex and see all the excited waiting watchers. For unclear reasons, last minute airfares werent available this week. I think it was due to people visiting Disney World during Presidents week and backlog from last weeks cancelations.

    1. Re:I went to the original Nov 1 launch date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For unclear reasons, last minute airfares werent available this week. I think it was due to people visiting Disney World during Presidents week and backlog from last weeks cancelations.

      Try the NASCAR 500. Orlando is a good hour from Daytona and you still can't get hotel rooms there on race weekend for all the race fans.

    2. Re:I went to the original Nov 1 launch date by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 1

      I drove down to view it from Titusville (great show, btw) and couldn't find a hotel within 30 miles with vacancies (I started looking earlier this week once I saw the weather was going to be good). Ended up in Daytona Beach Shores (35 miles away). Not a racing fan, so wasn't aware of any Daytona scheduling affecting things. Oh well.

  10. Inspirational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I watched it, not planning to, after a friend posted it on Facebook. I didn't even know it was happening at that point.

    Then I watched the live video. And I was gobsmacked. Amazed. I didn't realise that human endeavour involved something travelling at 14,000 (fourteen thousand) miles an hour after 7 minutes in flight. I just didn't know quite how incredible it was.

    I was sad that it was at night in the UK, because otherwise I wish that schools would stop so that children could watch this incredible achievement. Just amazing.

    But where is the next achievement like this after the final shuttle launch after this? Shuttles are gone, Concorde is gone. What's going to inspire our children to reach past our current achievements? I worry we're become a society of "now, next minute" rather than "what we could be".

    1. Re:Inspirational by blair1q · · Score: 1

      There's always the coming revolution against the Conservatives who are buying up and tearing down our democracies.

    2. Re:Inspirational by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the dark ages, where people will now believe that even landing on the moon was a conspiracy (like 'magic') as even the very ambition to do such a thing has long decayed.

      I bet more people watch Giligan Island's reruns than watched the shuttle take off. Humanity has reached a certain zenith and is now decaying into illiterate hordes who like the barbarians of Alaric can't even understand indoor plumbing.

      Look at the public schools of today and it is absolutely frightening to think what these children will be doing in just 10 years.

    3. Re:Inspirational by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      I wish that schools would stop so that children could watch this incredible achievement. Just amazing.

      I still remember my grade 8 science teacher trooping us all into the library and firing up a television so we could watch Columbian land back on terra firma for the for the first time (April 14, 1981).

    4. Re:Inspirational by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      If you thought STS-133 was impressive, how about 45m of slow-motion shuttle launch footage in HD?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFwqZ4qAUkE

      --
      Nick
    5. Re:Inspirational by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Every space geek ought to memorize that footage. Absolutely astounding. I just wish one could get a high res version in DVD format. They edited an enormous amount of film to get the video. I'd just as soon stare at the whole thing for hours.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Inspirational by Frangible · · Score: 1

      Those are teabaggers, not even conservatives; Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and even George W Bush all supported the shuttle program. And public education, for that matter.

      How can anyone who wants to defund the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) call themselves a member of the party of Reagan? Madness.

      But yes, it's quite sad to see regardless. If our educational system is gutted to save a couple of bucks, it doesn't bode well for the future of our country, our economy, or prosperity. And things like moon landings and space shuttles will seem like part of an unbelievable past.

      I don't give a damn what political party you're a member of, that's a future every American should fear.

    7. Re:Inspirational by blair1q · · Score: 2

      If you think the teabaggers are not conservatives, or that the conservatives are not behind the teabaggers, you're falling for it.

    8. Re:Inspirational by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      How else did you think it reaches orbital speeds? It's not just a matter of making it up there, it's making it up there with enough speed that you don't fall back down.

      Shuttle launches just show you how people take amazing things for granted. You want to talk about balls? Seven astronauts willing strap themselves to a giant fuel bomb built by the lowest bidder in order to achieve speed between 14,000 to 25,000 mph. Then, if that weren't ballsy enough, they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at that speed, with the ships hull reaching anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 F. Still not ballsy enough? After they make it through re-entry they have to perform to descend and land thing without any sort of engine power whatsoever. And that's not including strapping themselves into space suits to go perform work in the harshest environment known to man.

      Amazing doesn't begin to describe it.

      Of course, the glory days were back when we were landing on the moon. Those days are long gone though. Science in the US has been going downhill for quite some time. And now with the anti-science group gaining momentum, it won't be long before what we have left goes down the drain. It's probably going to be left to other nations to further space explorations.

      --
      ~X~
    9. Re:Inspirational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, thanks to our liberals they won't be able to afford to buy up and tear down anything.

    10. Re:Inspirational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's going to inspire our children to reach past our current achievements?

      iPhone.

  11. Fake! by warrax_666 · · Score: 0

    Clearly this was faked by our martian overlords. Whom I welcome, by the way.

    --
    HAND.
  12. your ignorance is astounding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was gobsmacked. Amazed. I didn't realise that human endeavour involved something travelling at 14,000 (fourteen thousand) miles an hour after 7 minutes in flight. I just didn't know quite how incredible it was.

    get the fuck out now.

  13. Incredibly sad day!!! by BudAaron · · Score: 1

    We've fallen to a second rate nation with the cessation of this program. I'm 83 so probably won't be around to see how far we fall. What I hate most is this is the legacy I'm leaving my granddaughters and it sucks!!!

    1. Re:Incredibly sad day!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      83-year-olds don't use the word 'suck' in ordinary speech, unless to describe the action of a vacuum cleaner. Now get off my lawn!

  14. Pete Townshend of The Whom by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Clearly this was faked by our martian overlords. Whom I welcome, by the way.

    Our overlords are displeased with subjects who fail to use "whom" correctly...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:Pete Townshend of The Whom by heironymous · · Score: 1

      Clearly this was faked by our martian overlords. Whom I welcome, by the way.

      Our overlords are displeased with subjects who fail to use "whom" correctly...

      How was that incorrect? "Whom" is the direct object.

  15. Re:armless babies worldwide applauding our prowess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go feed them and let us work!

  16. I see they've taken a passenger along with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:STS-133_Official_Crew_Photo.jpg

    Sickening.

    So a white man doesn't get to go into space because the Marxist nutcases at NASA just HAD to make the crew 'diverse' - i.e. an all white crew is NOT ALLOWED.
    Damn those intelligent white people for inventing space travel, and just about EVERYTHING ELSE.

    Are you sick of this shit yet? You soon will be.
    Imagine if NASA was 100% BLACK.

    How far do you think they'd get? Do you think there are sufficient intelligent black people in the world to put a shuttle into space?

    Honest answers only please, and only answers based on FACTS, not wishful thinking.

    Think about it - this is the world YOU are leaving to your children. A third world hellhole.

    1. Re:I see they've taken a passenger along with them by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      ack. s/lashdot/tormfront/g would probably have helped you when firing up your web browser today.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  17. OK, Wiki to the rescue by istartedi · · Score: 1

    List of Space disasters

    The Soviet disasters are, as you say, all re-entry. The US disasters are an even split, although you can quibble about Columbia since it was damaged on launch.

    Of course, the US disasters killed more people because the craft carried more people. The Wiki list also has ground fatalities, but it includes non-manned missions. They also include non-rocket accidents in the training list.

    There are, as always, lots of ways to juggle the statistics to make it look like something is worse or better.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:OK, Wiki to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

      For all intents and purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

      There, FTFY. It really gets my goat when people talk about "intensive purposes". What makes a purpose "intensive" anyway?!

  18. I'll miss the shuttle flights by richardoz · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter if it's money well spent, I know logically it's time to let them go. But I'll still miss them.

    --
    All the worlds indeed a .sig, and we are mearly players..
  19. Viking's funeral by plopez · · Score: 1

    They should give the old warhorse a Viking's funeral. Put some explosive on board, send it into orbit, point it toward the atmosphere so that the pieces land in a safe area, and then detonate the explosives as it goes into re-entry. It would be a great way for an old warrior to go out and possibly a great light show.

    You could hire some drunken Icelanders to recite epics while it happens. Oh may be a few broke Old English majors to recite Beowulf.

    Just a twisted thought......

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  20. Obama's High Five ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama has succeeded in killing the US human space flight program.

    Next up, Deep Space Program.

    Then, Earth Observation System.

    Last, NASA and NOAA.

    As Glen Greenwald at www.salon.com observed, Obama has "fixations."

    We have a Mad Man on the "button." May GOD help us all.

    -308

    PS.

    Obama's (Barak-O-Vision's) Joint operation with Gaddafi to kill people continues.

    Don't believe a word that BOV says in the press.

    -Toodles

     

  21. whenever somebody says "it's our destiny..." by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Whenever somebody says "it's our destiny" , I shiver. I'm conscious that any minute now they'll be waving a gun around and saying "God made me do it!" or "the voices in my head said it was my duty!".

    Control your own future, my friend. Don't believe in destiny or any other crazy ideas that your future is mapped out and you have no free will. You don't have to base your life on the belief in Ancient Greek goddesses (though I suppose other people believe in other gods so who am I to say what your belief system should be based upon...)

    1. Re:whenever somebody says "it's our destiny..." by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      Whenever somebody says "it's our destiny" , I shiver. I'm conscious that any minute now they'll be waving a gun around and saying "God made me do it!" or "the voices in my head said it was my duty!".

      Control your own future, my friend. Don't believe in destiny or any other crazy ideas that your future is mapped out and you have no free will. You don't have to base your life on the belief in Ancient Greek goddesses (though I suppose other people believe in other gods so who am I to say what your belief system should be based upon...)

      Jesus christ man, chill the fuck out. I'm not some religious lunatic with a gun fetish. I'm not even religious. And I didn't mean its our destiny like "God has willed it unto us" or some shit. I just meant that it is the most likely outcome of the progression of human society. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet humans end up populating the solar system and beyond. I'm not here to debate the meaning of the word "destiny" as anything other than how things end up (regardless of how or why).

      You've drunk your own kool-aid here, believing that you can simply assume people who suggest things you don't believe in are lunatics. But I'm not crazy. I mad a simple statement on where I believe we will end up, and you take me to be a gun waving lunatic. You can't look at everything like "You versus the crazies". There exist people with opinions that oppose yours who are in no way crazy. In fact, I suspect its a lot of people.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?